Change Forum... Civil Aviation Travel, Polls & Prefs Tech/Ops Aviation Hobby Aviation Photography Photography Feedback Trip Reports Military Av & Space Non-Aviation Site Related LIVE Chat My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search
 I Get Stumped At Dispatch School-1900 Cruise Chart
 L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30262 posts, RR: 57Posted Tue Apr 26 2005 06:09:08 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 3241 times:

 Hey guys first posting since I left for dispatch school about 4 weeks ago. Finishes up this week. Anyway a question was asked in class that doesn't really relate to the test, but rather the aerodynamics and performance of the Beech 1900C, which is one of the example aircraft in the class and is the one that we are using as our "Airline" airplane. Usually I can come up with a reasonable explanation for why an airplane does what it does, why it does it ect. but I am stumped for this one. I refer those of you to the recommended cruise power chart, 1550 RPM, ISA -10C that is figure 25 in the FAA ATP and Dispatcher testing supplement, page 19. The chart show the power and fuel flows in the 1900 at various weights and power settings. For example at 16,000 lbs a 1900 will have a fuel flow of 722, 672, and 648 lbs per hour at 22, 24 and 25 thousand feet respectively. At 10,000 lbs at the same altitudes the fuel flows would be 728,680, and 656 lbs respectively. All of the fuel flows at both of those rates follow what I have learned in many different A&P and pilot courses, namely that as altitude increases, fuel flow decreases. However what the question was, is "Why doesn't flew flow decrease with decreased weight". For example at 22 thousand feet and 16,000 lbs the fuel flow is 722lbs per hour. At 10,000 lbs it is 728 LBs per hour. Some 6 pounds per hour higher. This seems to be a paradox, since by the logic of most of us, as weight decreases we should need less power to keep the airplane up. The only thing I could think of was that at the lighter weights, more downforce (lift) was needed at the tail and this created more drag that caused the higher fuel flows. But I have my doubts on the reliablity of this hypothisis. Any aerodynamic experts or 1900 drivers out there can shed some light into why a 1900C that weighs less burns more gas at the same altitude then a heavier one?
 OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 Flybyguy From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 1812 posts, RR: 1 Reply 1, posted Tue Apr 26 2005 10:32:02 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 days ago) and read 3152 times:

Maybe there are some trim usage issues with the Beech 1900, because the increase in fuel burn at 22,000 ft @ 16,000lbs is only slightly less than at 10,000 lbs.

 Quoting L-188 (Thread starter):The only thing I could think of was that at the lighter weights, more downforce (lift) was needed at the tail and this created more drag that caused the higher fuel flows.

This can make sense since the only place baggage is loaded on a Beech 1900 is in a large rear hold behind the passenger cabin.

View Large View Medium

Maybe the difference in weights on your specs. sheet has more to do with difference in baggage loads. It is possible that the Beech 1900 is "nose heavy" to counteract the moments of the baggage hold when a full load is placed. To keep the plane flying straight and level may require some trimming to counteract these pitching forces (i.e moments or torques) and thus leads to some drag over a cleaner configuration achieved when the plane is fully loaded with passengers and baggage.

It is my experience as a passenger, that planes this size without symmetric (i.e. fore and aft of the wing) baggage spaces weight and balance can be a bit tricky and inconvenient, especially when the flight attendant or pilot tells you to change your seat to help balance the plane.

 "Are you a pretender... or a thoroughbred?!" - Professor Matt Miller
 Oly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 7113 posts, RR: 10 Reply 2, posted Tue Apr 26 2005 12:40:31 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 3141 times:

 Could be drag differences in cruise. The aircraft design will be optimised at a particular weight/cg position and variations from that will feed back into the aerodynamic performance.
 wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6160 posts, RR: 13 Reply 3, posted Tue Apr 26 2005 17:31:01 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

 It might have something to do with the higher IAS achieved with the lower weight. Notice too, that torque increases with lower weight.
 Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 Lowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 9 Reply 4, posted Tue Apr 26 2005 17:52:25 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

 Does the question give you a CG location? It is very easy to load the beech to an aft CG. Theoretically, you may have a lower AOA on the wing at 16000 lbs with and aft CG then at 10000lbs with a fwd CG. Just a thought.
 Proud OOTSK member
 L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30262 posts, RR: 57 Reply 5, posted Tue Apr 26 2005 18:04:38 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3089 times:

 Nope no CG location given, no weight given. It is just the figures given on the chart in the testing supplement. It actually isn't a question on the dispatcher test, thank god. It was just something another fellow noticed on the chart and it ran counter to his way of thinking..That is a lower weight should lead to a lower fuel burn, not a higher one, which is the case here.
 OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6160 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted Tue Apr 26 2005 18:07:37 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

 The questions referenced in the question, BE31-35, do not reference any center of gravity; however, there are a 25 questions in the B-1900 section that do deal with COG. Ten deal with weight and balance. Ten deal with a shift in weight and balance (I hated those the most.) Five deal with COG outside of allowable range. If I remember correctly, the B-1900 questions are part 135 only.[Edited 2005-04-26 18:09:04]
 Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30262 posts, RR: 57 Reply 7, posted Tue Apr 26 2005 18:53:42 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3071 times:

 Nope, there is no part 135 dispatcher test. Any of the aircraft types, DC-9, 737, 727 or 1900 are fair game for us. Since the instructor works for a company with 1900's and three of the students work for a 135 operator with them, it makes too much sense to use that aircraft as our "Class" airplane. I think I still prefer Metro's though
 OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30262 posts, RR: 57 Reply 8, posted Tue Apr 26 2005 23:09:01 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

 Quoting Flybyguy (Reply 1):To keep the plane flying straight and level may require some trimming to counteract these pitching forces (i.e moments or torques) and thus leads to some drag over a cleaner configuration achieved when the plane is fully loaded with passengers and baggage

See that is exactly what I was thinking when I suggested my original answer to this classmate. But the more I think of it the less sure of that answer I am....There just can't be that much drag caused by trimming a light airplane

 OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 Goldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 6160 posts, RR: 13 Reply 9, posted Wed Apr 27 2005 02:07:34 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2998 times:

 According to my list, there are only 5 questions that you need to know for the written. I'm not telling which, though.   Once you graduate, you can throw out all that weight and balance crap. It'll be useless to you once you get a job at many of the respectable regionals or cargo carriers.
 Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
 3201 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 10, posted Wed Apr 27 2005 05:30:39 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2970 times:

 The lighter airplane is flying a lot faster -- so while the FF is a tiny bit higher, the fuel per distance is actually a lot lower.
 LeanOfPeak From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 509 posts, RR: 1 Reply 11, posted Wed Apr 27 2005 07:58:41 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2939 times:

 The lighter airplane is flying too fast, too low, and too nose-down. There is an immensely complicated interrelation of variables that determines an aircraft's aerodynamic efficiency in Steady Level Unaccelerated Flight (SLUF), or cruise, but some of them are required lift (Which, in cruise, equals weight), airspeed, altitude, and (It's not usually looked at this way, as it is more often a function of coefficient of lift, but it can be derived at a particular airspeed and altitude) angle of attack. By the constraints of the table, you have locked in altitude and, to some extent, airspeed (Because dispatchers don't like to slow the airplane down during the trip). The remaining variable to take lift away from the aircraft (When it is lighter) is angle of attack. Unfortunately for this example, there is an angle of attack for optimal aerodynamic efficiency given values for all the other variables, and on either side of that angle of attack, the lift-to-drag ratio falls off. Bluntly, you are accepting an aerodynamic penalty for operating at a preferred altitude and airspeed. An aircraft which is operating light of optimal can get closer to an optimal angle of attack by either climbing or slowing down, either of which will comparatively raise the nose once SLUF is reestablished. You, as an aspiring dispatcher, know why they don't like to slow down. Most long-range aircraft will do some amount of climbing after the initial cruise segment as they get lighter to regain efficiency, but ATC and operational considerations, aircraft limitations, weather, and cost/benefit for the remaining sector length can lead to suboptimal aircraft operation. So, the engineering answer, which may be more complicated than they're looking for or something entirely different than what they're looking for, is that the lighter aircraft is flying too low and too fast for optimal aerodynamic efficiency (As this results in an attitude nose-down of optimal).
 L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30262 posts, RR: 57 Reply 12, posted Wed Apr 27 2005 22:29:24 UTC (10 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 2878 times:

 Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 9):Once you graduate, you can throw out all that weight and balance crap. It'll be useless to you once you get a job at many of the respectable regionals or cargo carriers

Hell I worked at a semi-respectable 135 operator before I got laid off, and we didn't have to do any of this crap either

/G and filing direct is such a wonderful thing

 OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
 Top Of Page Change Forum... Civil Aviation Travel, Polls & Prefs Tech/Ops Aviation Hobby Aviation Photography Photography Feedback Trip Reports Military Av & Space Non-Aviation Site Related LIVE Chat Forum Index

Reply To This Topic I Get Stumped At Dispatch School-1900 Cruise Chart
• Tech/Ops related posts only!
• Not Tech/Ops related? Use the other forums
• No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
• No hostile language or criticizing of others.
• Do not post copyright protected material.
• Use relevant and describing topics.
• DETAILED RULES

 Similar topics: More similar topics...
How Do Airliners Get Oxygen At 30k Ft? posted Wed Nov 9 2005 21:16:51 by Quickmover
What To Take To Dispatch School posted Thu Mar 24 2005 18:49:18 by L-188
Things You Don't Want To Get Too Good At posted Tue Oct 4 2005 01:43:19 by Dougloid
Engine Power Setting At Cruise posted Tue Feb 1 2005 22:54:12 by Gulfstream
Pilot's View At Cruise posted Sun Jan 23 2005 18:15:32 by Masonaries
UPS 757 Landing At Night W/o Lights? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 08:00:51 by Motopolitico
777 Cruise posted Tue Nov 14 2006 22:28:48 by Glom
Anyone Landed At Wrong Airport Or Runway? posted Fri Nov 10 2006 12:33:28 by Redcordes
How Do Piolts Get Into Their Seats? posted Tue Oct 31 2006 20:29:29 by Tony1477
Jetfuel Storage At Airports posted Sat Oct 28 2006 12:33:11 by VikingA346